There’s an old story that sufaces almost every election about a liberal thinking son/daughter of a very conservative thinking business man.
On spring break the daughter comes home and lights into the father about his conservative thinking. She tells him that only by being a more liberal, caring society will we ever manage to survive and improve ourselves.
To this the father smiles and asks about the son/daughters room mate at school.
The son/daughter answers that the roommate will probably not be there next quarter as their grades are less than stellar.
To this the father again smiles and suggests… Well you have a 4.0 GPA. Why don’t you offer to give your roommate some of your grades so they can stay in school.
This enraged the son/daughter. I’ve worked hard for those grades. Unlike XXX who parties all of the time, I have studied hard to earn those. There’s no way that I am going to give them up.
The father smiled again. So you’re not all that liberal afterall.
Pointless? Maybe, but most all of us here have worked hard for what we have. If someone really needs help, we would surely give it. But for people to expect that they will get a free ride… BS
Thanks for posting that. Seriously. I have already printed this to read periodically. The more and more I read of the libertarian principles, the more and more they seem to make sense.
Wow,
I was just playing the Devil’s advocate. Not trying to solve the nation’ problem.
Yes, I understand that SFO is the “liberal” capital of the world,(I was born & raised here – I wouldn’t live anywhere else) but there are some of us who are “middle of the road” and would like to see some change…it’s just not working with the way it is now – let’s get rid of bipartisan politics and all work towards one common goal. I’m quite the dreamer :)
Let’s get one thing straight- neither Obama or Clinton is talking about have a universal government plan. Anyone with health insurance through work will see no changes. Anyone without insurance will be eligible for the same type of insurance your mail carrier and other federal employees have which is to say health coverage from private for-profit companies competing against each other. Drive around Washington, DC during the enrollment period and you will see billboards trying to get federal employees to change carriers from one company to another. We are not talking about a Canadian or UK system and all this talk about socialized medicine is a lot of hot air. You can bet the health insurance companies wouldn’t be giving money to Clinton if they thought she was going to put them out of business.
Clinton and Obama do differ as to whether to make getting insurance mandatory and that is what the article is about but rest assured no one is talking about doing away with private insurance. Also, the proposed plans were first put forth in the 1970’s by a left wing pinko radical named Richard Nixon.
In his 1974 State of the Union address, Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance with the following remarks:
“Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. This will be a plan that maintains the high standards of quality in America’s health care. And it will not require additional taxes.”
On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.
well, first of all, you can’t mandate we contribute to a national health care plan. similar to the social security – your going to find it bankrupt and no way out, continuing to put us in more DEBT. there will not be enough money. we already have enough of my money going to the IRS for taxes (state and federal).
1) do we need a national health care? possibly, but not to a demand that it has to be taken. like any other benefit, it should be an offer on the table without any strings attached.
2) child care – um… in many states it would be child abuse if you did not attempt to take care of any medical problems your kids have. just like you do you pets, you are responsible. now, if you look at some of these kids, where’s the child support for them? remember that this issue should be covered by both parties (mother and father). there are deadbeats on both sides of this fence.
3) true the statement someone said earlier, if the clintons having been in office, why did they not address/correct the social security issue? what makes you think she will now? our parents are in need of help – and these are the folks who have paid more into social security than anyone else.
so how much more can we take as a society of the deliquent leaders in our congress TODAY. we need a change of leadership; stop re-electing folks back into congress if they are not getting the job done!
Of course, and he also gave us OSHA and the EPA, threw Taiwan overboard in favor of the Communist butchers in Peking, ended fixed echange rates between the dollar and gold and implemented wage and price controls, let the communists off the hook in Vietnam, signed the ABM Treaty, implemented the Philadelphia Plan that required strict quotas for minorities on govt projects, increased capital gains taxes, and probably ten other things that have escaped me.
So having Nixon on her side does not enhance her reputation, it just figures.
Pantsuit has not announced any differences between the plan that she tried to foist on us while her trailer trash husband was president and this plan. Her former plan would make it a felony to pay or receive cash for medical care, would tell med students where they had to go to school and what specialization they would have to enter, and other wonderful limitations of our freedom and strictures upon the marketplace.
She worked for a communist law firm in San Francisco defending the Black Panthers when she got out of college. She has never expressed regret for that poor judgment and continues to advocate socialistic solutions to problems caused in the first place by govt interference in the market.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
There’s an old story that sufaces almost every election about a liberal thinking son/daughter of a very conservative thinking business man.
On spring break the daughter comes home and lights into the father about his conservative thinking. She tells him that only by being a more liberal, caring society will we ever manage to survive and improve ourselves.
To this the father smiles and asks about the son/daughters room mate at school.
The son/daughter answers that the roommate will probably not be there next quarter as their grades are less than stellar.
To this the father again smiles and suggests… Well you have a 4.0 GPA. Why don’t you offer to give your roommate some of your grades so they can stay in school.
This enraged the son/daughter. I’ve worked hard for those grades. Unlike XXX who parties all of the time, I have studied hard to earn those. There’s no way that I am going to give them up.
The father smiled again. So you’re not all that liberal afterall.
Pointless? Maybe, but most all of us here have worked hard for what we have. If someone really needs help, we would surely give it. But for people to expect that they will get a free ride… BS
Remember:
If you are not a liberal by age 18, you don’t have a heart.
If you are not a conservative by age 40, you don’t have a brain.
Alan,
Thanks for posting that. Seriously. I have already printed this to read periodically. The more and more I read of the libertarian principles, the more and more they seem to make sense.
Wow,
I was just playing the Devil’s advocate. Not trying to solve the nation’ problem.
Yes, I understand that SFO is the “liberal” capital of the world,(I was born & raised here – I wouldn’t live anywhere else) but there are some of us who are “middle of the road” and would like to see some change…it’s just not working with the way it is now – let’s get rid of bipartisan politics and all work towards one common goal. I’m quite the dreamer :)
Let’s get one thing straight- neither Obama or Clinton is talking about have a universal government plan. Anyone with health insurance through work will see no changes. Anyone without insurance will be eligible for the same type of insurance your mail carrier and other federal employees have which is to say health coverage from private for-profit companies competing against each other. Drive around Washington, DC during the enrollment period and you will see billboards trying to get federal employees to change carriers from one company to another. We are not talking about a Canadian or UK system and all this talk about socialized medicine is a lot of hot air. You can bet the health insurance companies wouldn’t be giving money to Clinton if they thought she was going to put them out of business.
Clinton and Obama do differ as to whether to make getting insurance mandatory and that is what the article is about but rest assured no one is talking about doing away with private insurance. Also, the proposed plans were first put forth in the 1970’s by a left wing pinko radical named Richard Nixon.
In his 1974 State of the Union address, Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance with the following remarks:
“Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. This will be a plan that maintains the high standards of quality in America’s health care. And it will not require additional taxes.”
On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.
well, first of all, you can’t mandate we contribute to a national health care plan. similar to the social security – your going to find it bankrupt and no way out, continuing to put us in more DEBT. there will not be enough money. we already have enough of my money going to the IRS for taxes (state and federal).
1) do we need a national health care? possibly, but not to a demand that it has to be taken. like any other benefit, it should be an offer on the table without any strings attached.
2) child care – um… in many states it would be child abuse if you did not attempt to take care of any medical problems your kids have. just like you do you pets, you are responsible. now, if you look at some of these kids, where’s the child support for them? remember that this issue should be covered by both parties (mother and father). there are deadbeats on both sides of this fence.
3) true the statement someone said earlier, if the clintons having been in office, why did they not address/correct the social security issue? what makes you think she will now? our parents are in need of help – and these are the folks who have paid more into social security than anyone else.
so how much more can we take as a society of the deliquent leaders in our congress TODAY. we need a change of leadership; stop re-electing folks back into congress if they are not getting the job done!
GREAT EXPLAINATION BANG!!! When you start analyzing the math of making this idea happen, it all now looks like “Billary” is just trying to get votes.
Of course, and he also gave us OSHA and the EPA, threw Taiwan overboard in favor of the Communist butchers in Peking, ended fixed echange rates between the dollar and gold and implemented wage and price controls, let the communists off the hook in Vietnam, signed the ABM Treaty, implemented the Philadelphia Plan that required strict quotas for minorities on govt projects, increased capital gains taxes, and probably ten other things that have escaped me.
So having Nixon on her side does not enhance her reputation, it just figures.
Pantsuit has not announced any differences between the plan that she tried to foist on us while her trailer trash husband was president and this plan. Her former plan would make it a felony to pay or receive cash for medical care, would tell med students where they had to go to school and what specialization they would have to enter, and other wonderful limitations of our freedom and strictures upon the marketplace.
She worked for a communist law firm in San Francisco defending the Black Panthers when she got out of college. She has never expressed regret for that poor judgment and continues to advocate socialistic solutions to problems caused in the first place by govt interference in the market.
I was absent that day in history class.
Don’t judge.
=)
“Pinko” is a deragatory term for a Communist (since red was/is the favored color or communism it seems).